Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]

Clause 24

Power to cancel a BRS

Amendment proposed (29 January): 20, in clause 24, page 15, line 20, at end insert
, and where it does so it
(i) must direct the levying authority to refund the sums received by it in respect of the BRS or, where the levying authority is not a billing authority, direct it to return to a billing authority that is a lower-tier authority in relation to sums transferred to it by the billing authority,
(ii) must direct a billing authority that is a lower-tier authority in relation to the levying authority to refund the sums collected by it in respect of the BRS but not transferred to the levying authority, and
(iii) must direct a functional body to transfer to the levying authority sums received by the body in respect of the BRS but not used by it, and.(Dan Rogerson.)

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Peter Atkinson: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment 21, in clause 24, page 15, line 21, leave out paragraphs (b) to (d).

John Healey: Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Atkinson. I also welcome members of the Committee back to the Bill scrutiny proceedings.
I was not certain whether the hon. Member for Northampton, South had finished his intervention when we adjourned last Thursday, but I have checked the record and it appears that he had. I get the hon. Gentlemans pointI get it every time he makes itand he will find that there is provision, particularly in the guidance, for encouraging local authorities to deal with businesses that have a particular interest in a projects success throughout its delivery life, not just during the period leading up to the potential introduction of a business rate supplement that helps to pay for it.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall explained that amendment 20 would require the Secretary of State to give directions that provide refunds to ratepayers in areas where she exercises her power to cancel a BRS, but I think he understands that the Bill already gives the Secretary of State the power to do that. The Bill therefore clearly contains the principle that that may well be the appropriate and right thing for the Secretary of State to do.
My concern about the amendments is that there could be wide-ranging consequences , probably unintended by the hon. Gentleman. The principal risk is that the Secretary of State would find it more difficult to exercise her power to cancel if refunds were required and automatically followed, whatever the financial consequences for the local authority and whatever stage a project and payments under a BRS had reached. The provision is therefore designed to ensure that there are safeguards that acknowledge the concerns that the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members have voiced on behalf of business interests, as well as the practicalities for local authorities and ratepayers.
The Secretary of State has to balance those issues as part of her job and she owes public law duties not only to ratepayers, but to local authorities. If the amendment were made and there were an automatic right to full refunds of all amounts paid, it could prove in practice more difficult to cancel a BRS in a reasonable way.

Daniel Rogerson: I am grateful to the Minister for the way he has considered the intention behind my amendment. The principle that I wish to stress is that available surplus moneysmoneys that have not been spent up to the point at which a scheme fails or draws to a halt, or the Secretary of State needs to intervene to force that to happencould be paid back, rather than moneys that have already been spent up to that point being refunded. It is clearly not my intention to penalise a local authoritys taxpayers for liabilities that have already been incurred, but I would prefer that any surplus moneys available be sent back, rather than sit in an account and used for some other purpose.

John Healey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification of his intent, but it is not entirely captured in his amendment, which is what I am addressing. The power and principle that any surplus funds could be directed towards refunds are clearly established in the Bill. By taking away the Secretary of States power to act in a way appropriate to particular circumstances that are impossible to anticipate in detail from our vantage point, the amendment could have the unintended consequence of reducing some of the protection that the hon. Gentleman would like for the interests of businesses that he wants to promote. It might create further difficulties and make those consequences wider ranging if the refund was automatic in the event of any BRS cancellation.
The clause also provides the Secretary of State with a power to take a number of steps before a full-blown cancellation of a BRSincluding refunds of surpluses or refunds without a cancellationso that the potential for a refund does not depend on the cancellation of a BRS. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich was understandably concerned about that, as it has the potential be an almost nuclear power. He was concerned that it might be used not in a measured way, but to remove a BRS at some point in the future.
I accept the point that the phrase in the clause, materially inconsistent with the prospectus, is not defined, but it means that a levying authority has made more than a minor deviation from the terms of its prospectus. If, when the project was undertaken, the levying authority did something extra that had a relatively small effect on the cost, but no effect on the level of the BRS, it is very unlikely that that would be considered materially inconsistent and that it would be sufficiently strong grounds for the Secretary of State to consider a full-blown cancellation of the BRS. However, if a levying authority diverted revenue from the BRS from one project to another, clearly that might be materially inconsistent. From the Committees point of view, at this stage, any sort of judgment on intervention, including cancellation, would be based on a test of fact and a test of degree.

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful for my right hon. Friends explanation of the way in which the phrase materially inconsistent is likely to be interpreted in practice. The worry that I expressed in our last sitting was that subsection (2)(c) may relate to information provided in the course of consultation. I gave the example of what might be said by a council officer during a consultation, which could then be used by those unsympathetic to a BID to seek perhaps even judicial review, on the ground that something was said that was materially inconsistent with the objectives, even if that had not been confirmed in writing. I do not want to push that point too hard, but I am nervous. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reflect on whether the phrasing is appropriate to ensure his objective, to which I entirely subscribe, or whether there might be loopholes.

John Healey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for not wishing to press the point too hard. He does not need to because I will move on to that. Having dealt with the bigger context and what are likely to be the core tests in the individual circumstances which any Secretary of State might need to bring to bear, I take the point that he has raised regarding subsection (2)(c) and will consider it further. If I conclude that any clarification is necessary, either in the legislation or in the guidance, I will provide it, but I am grateful to him for raising the matter.
In summary, there are a number of other steps short of the cancellation of a BRS that the Secretary of State could take if she believes that there is a material inconsistency in relation to a BRS and its use. The clause allows the appropriate flexibility for action in specific circumstances and, of course, there will be a range of levels of intervention, as hon. Members will be aware, short of the Secretary of State having to step in if there is concern or evidence that a local authority is going off track in its use of the BRS. Those are generally the established support and intervention powers that are available to local and central Government in a wide range of circumstances.
I hope that my remarks have been helpful to the Committee and that the hon. Member for North Cornwall will not need to press amendment 20. I commend the clause to the Committee and I hope that hon. Members will allow it to stand part of the Bill.

Daniel Rogerson: I welcome you to another mornings entertainment watching our deliberations from the Chair, Mr. Atkinson.
I do not intend to press the amendments to the vote. I am somewhat reassured by the Ministers saying that flexibility is not an indication that money would not be returned to bill payers as a matter of course and that the aim would be to return it wherever possible, although there might be occasions when that would not be appropriate. I am sure that the matter will receive further considerationperhaps the other place will want to consider it, unencumbered by any interests.
I hope that the Minister has taken on board the Oppositions concerns about possible problems were money to be held back following the cancellation of a scheme. There is an indication on the record that the aim would be to return money as a matter of course, although some flexibility may be necessary. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Provision of Information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Dunne: It is a pleasure to welcome you back to the Committee, Mr. Atkinson, in what might be our final sitting.
If I may, I will reiterate the point that I made on the audit of information under the clause. I have not tabled an amendment, but I ask the Minister to consider on Report expanding the remit of the clause to place on a levying authority that chooses to introduce the BRS an obligation to make information on the progress of the project available to the public. That could be done not only through the authoritys accounts, but through a statement that could be made available to the BRS payerssay, annuallyso that there was accountability to those payers for the levy that they have been charged.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman made that case clearly and strongly in previous discussions. Clause 25 is perhaps not the most appropriate point to consider that issue or such amendments, not least because it provides for billing authorities in two-tier areas to make information available to the levying authority where that is necessary for the administration of the BRS. However, in general terms, as I think my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has indicated to him, our basic approach in framing the legislation is to look to any potential levying authority to prepare projects and the actual use of a BRS in an open and consultative manner. The general question of what should be required of levying authorities in carrying out that responsibility if they choose to exercise the powers is dealt with in the draft guidance, which is now out for consultation.
My hon. Friend and I have listened carefully to the points that the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee have made about the open, consultative provision of information. We will reflect further on the specific point that he has made, which essentially is to ensure that that approach is continued once a BRS is introduced, and not just in the period up to its potential introduction.
The clause, as I explained briefly, allows the levying authority to gather the information that it needs to fulfil its duties under the Bill, while ensuring that the information that it gains from the billing authorities cannot be exploited or misused, but is used only for the particular purposes. The safeguards are in place, setting out clearly that the levying authority can use the information only for the purposes of the BRS and not for any other use, and that the information cannot be disclosed to another authority for other, non-BRS-related business. On that basis, I hope that members of the Committee will see the importance of the clause.

Bob Neill: I do not disagree with the Ministers comments, and I take his point about the safeguards. However, subsection (3) makes provision for charging a fee on a discretionary basis. Does the Minister envisage a covering of costs by the billing authority? Since it is all council tax payers money at the end of the day, I should imagine anyone will welcome any degree of cost shunting between the two tiers of authority. I hope that that will be made clear in the guidance, and dealt with on a sensible basis.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman has long experience in local government, and he will know that, generally, local authorities have fee-charging powers to cover costs, and they are limited to those.
The clause is important, even if it is towards the end of the Bill, because it is important to make sure that in two-tier areas, the levying of any potential BRS by a top-tier authority is efficient and effective.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Guidance

Question proposed,That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Healey: The guidance, which is currently undergoing a 12-week consultation in its draft form, is an important part of explaining to local authorities, businesses and other groups with an interest in the projects that a BRS may support how the process of reaching a decision to introduce a BRS should work. The clause requires the levying authorities to have regard to any guidance that the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers may issue. In other words, it gives statutory forcethe bite that we may needto any guidance, especially on which projects may be regarded as appropriate to be funded by a BRS and on how the levying authority will demonstrate that it would not have incurred the expenditure had it not introduced a BRS.
It is important that a basic level of content is included in the prospectus, which will provide the grounding for a BRS. We expect the documents not only to be rigorous in their assessment of a project, but to be understood easily by the wider community, other interest groups and local residents. The prospectus needs to be of a high standard, setting out the pros and cons of a project for everyone. Our guidance is an important part of that, and the Committees deliberations have made a useful contribution to developing any further thinking that we may need in preparation for the final guidance, which we will consider alongside any responses that we receive during the consultation process.

Daniel Rogerson: I understand absolutely that the guidance needs a statutory force to have any real value. I am interested in what may happen in the future, should the guidance be changed based on the experience of processes that have been taken up in some parts of the country where schemes have been successful or otherwise. What provision is there for schemes that have reached the prospectus stage or have got part of the way through the process, so that a great deal of work has been done based on guidance that has then been altered? Are there safeguards to help those in that position? I am thinking of local authorities that have drawn up costings and a prospectus based on guidance that may have subsequently been changed. Is there a cut-off so that their projects can go forward under the guidance that applied before such changes came into force?

Bob Neill: Mr. Atkinson, I welcome you to the Chair on what is a bright and sunny morning for London, as I hope it is for Northumberland.

Peter Atkinson: It is.

Bob Neill: It was not so bright and sunny in Chislehurst yesterday.
I understand the Ministers point. The Committee has discussed the importance of the guidance quite a bit. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making it clear that the full 12 weeks consultation will take place. I am sure he has seen the briefing note from the Local Government Association, which expressed a little disappointment that there had not been more pre-consultation and was hoping for more detail. I do not pass judgment on the details of that note, but I hope that he will assure us that there will be a rigorous process of engagement with both the LGA and the business community, including those who have given evidence to the Committee, before the process is completed.
Given that the comments have to be in by 17 April and the Minister will, I know, want to give them careful consideration, I realise that he may not be able to give us an exact timetable, but if he has some idea of when we can expect to see the completed guidance and of how it might fit in with the Bills departure from this House to another place, it might be helpful to know. I am sure that on some points, perfectly understandably, further scrutiny will be sought, to see how our debates and other representations have been incorporated into the guidelines, as all of us on both sides of the Committee want.

John Healey: To the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, let me say that of course the representations we receive and any further discussions that are requested and are appropriate with business organisations, local government bodies or other interest groups will be picked up and pursued rigorously during the 12-week consultation period. I am sure that the LGA can get its act together in 12 weeks to give us a full account of local governments concerns and the points it wishes to make; I look forward to its response to the consultation. My intention, as it has been with every element of the preparation for the Bill, is not to delay either clarification or confirmation of the approach we wish to take, not least because for those authoritiesin London, in particularthat want to make early use of the powers, should Parliament pass the Bill, the greater certainty they have and the earlier they have it, the better.
In terms of the relationship with parliamentary consideration of the Bill, that approach has pros and cons. If we are able to produce the guidance that we determine to be final early, it may play a role in informing the debate in another place. On the other hand, holding back a little longer, perhaps beyond the end of the formal consultation period, may give Members of the other place the opportunity to feel that fresh points that they may have to make could be taken into account. That is a judgment that I will make closer to the time.
To the hon. Member for North Cornwall, let me say in all honesty that there can be no guarantee regarding the possibility of updating guidance. However, there may be a degree of reassurance for him in subsection (2), where much of the content of the guidance is linked to duties or requirements set out in the Bill. In other words, the guidance is developed and will be published within the framework and the constraints of the Bill itself. The guidance is largely a matter of filling the gaps, rather than writing a set of rules afresh. Those who look to the guidance that we will produce to base work on a project or a BRS must be reassured to know that it would be difficult to change it lock, stock and barrel, but clearly there may be updates to the guidance in the future.

Daniel Rogerson: I am talking, for example, about subsection (2)(a) where it refers to
the kinds of projects which may, and may not, be regarded as appropriate ones.
It would be a fairly fundamental change if, for example, the guidance were updated to modify the types of scheme that are to be included. That would have serious consequences for a proposal that is being drawn up. I merely want such issues to be considered.

John Healey: I understand. Nevertheless, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the Bill, he will see that it contains specific constraints linked to projects that will promote economic development, rather than other aims, as well as statutory constraints on using BRS to fund services that local authorities have a statutory responsibility to provide. He has helped by drawing attention to a specific example of how the guidance will describe or fill in the gaps in the fuller picture, but the Bill itself lays out the framework within which the guidance and any BRS will have to be introduced.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Special introductory provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Healey: I shall speak briefly to this clause because the special introductory provision requires comment. It is needed because big projects can take some time to get under way and we do not want to exclude authorities that may have already been working in partnership with local businesses and business organisations, developing detailed plans based on using BRS as an element of their budget stream. That applies in particular to projects that in the long term will bring real benefits to wide areas. The clause therefore provides a general power to do that, and subsection (6) specifically allows the Secretary of State to make regulations on the establishment and operation of a BRS in London in the period up to 1 April 2012.

Mark Field: Is the Minister not concerned that the nature of the provision goes to the heart of what I suspect will be an ongoing concern for both individual businesses and large business organisations: additionality? If a programme is effectively already in place after much thought and consultation with local businesses, and some sort of plan has been devised in the preceding years, waiting for BRS to come on board goes to the very heart of concerns about additionality. I am not saying that it is an easy problem for the Minister to grapple with, but we risk making business more cynical, particularly in these difficult times, about having to pay for something through a BRS that it believes should already have been paid for.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is right. However, we discussed in both the evidence and the scrutiny sittings that BRS in the case of Crossrail and London is an essential element, without which the funding package for the Crossrail project would not stand up and that project would come to a juddering halt. That will be the consequence if this House and the other place do not ultimately approve the Bills provisions. I have not heard the concept of additionality persuasively contested in the case of Crossrail. The importance of that certainty and confidence in making such big projects work needs to be balanced against the hon. Gentlemans concern, and the way to deal with that is to make the clauses powerful provision properly time-limited.
In other words, the special introductory provision can be used only up until 1 April 2012. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we are trying to strike the balance between not stopping big projects such as Crossrail in their tracks, where a considerable amount of work has appropriately gone on, and allowing what some might regard as a potential loophole to the principle of additionality for BRS in any future projects.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Power to make consequential provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Healey: The clause is a standard but important element of the Bill. It creates regulation-making powers for the Secretary of State and for Welsh Ministers who can, in appropriate circumstances, amend both primary and secondary legislation. We anticipate that the power will need to be exercised only in relation to secondary legislation, as we have already made provision in the Bill to make amendments to primary legislation that we have identified will be necessary for the introduction and operation of a BRS.
Such provisions are fairly standard legislative practice, simply because it cannot be ruled out that there will be provisions in primary legislation which will need amending. Similar provisions exist in section 237 of the Planning Act 2008, in section 145 of the Pensions Act 2008 and in section 167 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. Any regulations made under clause 28 will, if they amend primary legislation, be subject to the affirmative procedure, and regulations amending secondary legislation will be subject to the negative procedure.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Regulations etc.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Healey: The clause applies to all the secondary legislation-making powers in the Bill. We have spelt this out because, as it is a revenue-raising Bill, it is important that there are no gaps in the BRS system. The power in the clause is important to our ability to achieve that.
The powers are all exercisable by making regulations, apart from the power to make a commencement order under clause 32. In particular, clause 29(3) provides standard scope and flexibility for that provision to be made
generally or only for specific cases,
and for
different provision for different cases or areas
to be made. In addition, the subsection provides for secondary legislation to
make incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or savings provision.
I said earlier that these are standard provisions. I questioned officials on whether transitory was a standard component of such clauses and was told, It comes and goes. That reflects the fact that we may make regulations under the special introductory provision that we have just discussed, which is available for a limited period.

Bob Neill: Can the Minister can help me? Do those who advise him think that it is transitory, or do they consider that it is transitory?

John Healey: They are confident. They are confident that that element that comes and goes in other legislation is required here simply because we need to give effect to what will be transitory provisions if regulations are required under clause 27.
I remind the Committee that I have published a statement of intent that indicates how we intend to approach the main regulation-making powers under the Bill. I can confirmthis will be of particular interest in another placethat I do not consider that any exercise of Commons privilege over the regulation-making powers is required or appropriate. Essentially, local government revenue raising could be subject to Commons privilege, but generally that privilege is not asserted. In the case of the BRS, that would not be appropriate because such revenue will not come to the central Exchequer, but will be collected and held at local authority level, so it would not be appropriate to consider subjecting it to any form of Commons privilege. I am sure that Members of the other place will appreciate that confirmation and will look forward to the scrutiny role that they will play on all the regulations, as well as the Bill.

Daniel Rogerson: I shall not detain the Committee long. I merely want to draw attention to subsection (3). The Government have vigorously made the point about the need for consistency and about how the Bill must apply in all casesfor example, with regard to a ballot across all parts of the country, although I am not threatening to revisit that argument. Subsection (3) clearly talks about a provision that applies
generally or only for specified cases or which applies subject to specified exceptions;
(b) may make different provision for different cases or different areas.
That tends to support the argument that there may be specific examples where different provisions may apply. I merely make that point in passing.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

Crown Application

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Daniel Rogerson: The Minister knows exactly what I am going to ask, given our experience facing each other on the Committee that considered the Planning Bill. That Bill contained specific exemptions for the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall. In this Bill, we are informed that the Act will bind the Crown. Will it bind the Duchy of Cornwall?

John Healey: I anticipated that the hon. Gentleman might have an interest in this question, and I am pleased to confirm that I wrote to Her Majesty, who confirmed that she is content that Crown property be bound by the provisions of the Bill, should that property be liable and in an area where a levying authority raises a BRS.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered,
That certain written evidence already reported to the House be appended to the proceedings of the Committee.(John Healey.)

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill to the House.

John Healey: On a point of order, Mr. Atkinson. Before you close our proceedings, may I thank you and Mrs. Dean for the way in which you have chaired and guided our proceedings? You have been very fair and we have maintained a fair pace. I am grateful to you for that.
I thank the staff of the Official Report and the House for making sure that we have been well looked after and that our proceedings have been well documented. I also thank the officialsthe Committees pace, rigour and scrutiny have certainly kept them on their toes. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have tried to keep on our toes as well.
The Committee is one of the strongest that I have served on, in the sense that it brings together Members with expertise in local and national Government and in the private and public sectors, andthis reflects the nature of the Bill itselfwith experience of and an interest in both London and the rest of the country. That has come through clearly in the way that the Committee has handled its evidence and scrutiny sessions as part of the process of legislating.
I thank the Opposition spokesmen, the hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for North Cornwall. I pay tribute to the way in which they have dealt with the differences between us in a rigorous but measured way, although their positions are still riddled with contradictions, which I look forward to debating further on Report and Third Reading.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State started his remarks by saying that this Committee was his maiden voyage: only somebody who represents a constituency in landlocked London could describe the Committees proceedings in maritime terms. However, he has sailed through the proceedings; he has not tacked under pressure, but has trimmed when appropriatewhen we have heard strong, persuasive arguments from both sides of the Committee. I am sure that this is the first of many Bills that he will pilot through the House, and I look forward to his leading on other Bills.

Bob Neill: Further to that point of order, Mr. Atkinson. I add my thanks and observations to those of the Minister. For once, he and I are entirely in accord, with just one exception.
I and all my hon. Friends are grateful to you and Mrs. Dean for your courtesy. I am also grateful to the staff of the House, the Official Report and the officials. Some of the questions that we have bowled up have been dealt with courteously and efficiently.
I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members agree that this has been a rigorous but good-natured Committee. We are fortunate, as the Minister rightly said, in the breadth of experience that has been brought to bear. That means that although our scrutiny of the Bill was short compared with that of some of the other Bills with which the Minister for Local Government and I have had to deal recently, it has none the less been constructive, and I am grateful for that.
I thank the Whips on both sides for the expedition with which they have dealt with our proceedingsI am told that it is always prudent to say that. I thank both Ministers for their courtesy throughout, and the hon. Member for North Cornwall, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats. All in all, ours has been a civilised Committee.
This is, I think, the first time that I have managed to get through a Committee without any football references, perhaps because the situation of my team and that of the hon. Member for Wigan means that we need to be neither defensive nor unduly triumphant. That is probably why we passed through without any of the analogies that we sometimes hear.
I am sure that all my hon. Friends will agree with those remarks, which I have made on a most considered basis.

Daniel Rogerson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Atkinson. I thank you and Mrs. Dean for the way in which you have allowed us to have a full and open discussion of the matters before us, while keeping us firmly in order.
I thank the staff of the House and the Official Report for the way in which they have ensured that we have had everything necessary to hand, which has enabled us to work effectively. I also thank my research staff, who have always been helpful in tabling amendments on timejust aboutwhen I have been dashing about doing other things.
I echo the Ministers comments on the way in which the Committee conducted itself as a whole. We have had the chance to discuss the issues. Political points asidethere were undoubtedly many of thoseeach Member brought little insights to our debates that helped the whole Committee, and we are collectively better off because of that.
Let me reciprocate the comments made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and say that it is always a pleasure to serve on a Committee with him. The Minister for Local Government has, as usual, been generous in his praise and serious in his consideration of the amendmentsif not generous in accepting them. I, too, congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on his maiden voyage through the choppy waters of Crossrail and the BRS.
I look forward to further consideration of the Bill when it is reported to the House and to seeing what those in the other place make of it. I thank you again, Mr. Atkinson, for the way in which the Committee has proceeded.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.

Committee rose.